Re: radsafe partitioning

["Dr. Neil Utting" <radprot@radprot.demon.co.uk>]

As a non-US recipient of radsafe information, I would not want to see
partitioning; the very wide rtange of subjects aired is just what I
want. There is always the delete key, and if there is to be a censor,
then I will do it myself. In message <INELVM1.RUH.912013170096080FINELVM
1@INEL.GOV>, PAUL E RUHTER <RUH@inel.gov> writes
>
>Supervisor, Radiation Dosimetry & Records
>User ID-RUH; Mail Stop-4147;  Ext. 6-1973
>I agree with Dupre, et al; keep it like it is.
>
>*** Reply to note of 03/20/96 15:05
>
>From: Sue M. Dupre
>To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE
>
>Subject: Re: radsafe partitioning
>I agree with the view Dale Boyce just expressed against partitioning RADSAFE.
>I believe I'm a better rounded, more knowledgeable health physicist than I was
>when I was a year or two ago, and it's because of the breadth of material
>covered on RADSAFE.  I haven't been overwhelmed by the amount of material show-
>ing up here because my friend, the delete key, is ever at hand, as well as my
>rapier-quick judgement about what's interesting or not.
>
>Regards and thanks to you all,
>Sue Dupre/Health Physicist/Princeton University
>dupre@princeton.edu

-- 
Dr. Neil Utting